New York Times Reporter Stolberg Has Front-Page Fixation on Ging's Bling
Will Newt Gingrich's big credit line at Tiffany's define his 2012 Republican presidential run? The New York Times seems to hope so. Wednesday’s front page "Political Memo" by Sheryl Gay Stolberg on Gingrich’s credit line was bejeweled with a headline that sounded like a liberal wish: "All That Glitters May Redefine Run by Gingrich."
To the long list of rich-guy foibles that turned into defining campaign moments -- John Edwards’s $400 haircut, John Kerry’s kite-surfing, John McCain’s inability to remember how many homes he owns -- let us now add Newt Gingrich’s $500,000 revolving line of credit at the luxury jeweler Tiffany & Company.
One difference: The Times ran their April 20, 2007 story on Edwards’ haircut not on the front page, but on page 15.
The way Mr. Gingrich sees it, as he said on "Face the Nation" on Sunday, he’s "a guy running for president who pays all of his bills," who lives within his budget and who is in fact "very frugal."
The way some voters out in the rest of America might see it, he’s a guy who paid more for jewelry than some people pay for their houses.
It has been a week since Politico broke the news that while working for the House Agriculture Committee, Mr. Gingrich’s wife, Callista, filed forms for 2005 and 2006 disclosing her husband’s "revolving charge" of $250,001 to $500,000 with Tiffany. Mr. Gingrich, insisting his jewelry buying habits are his own business, has declined to say what he bought.
Really sinking her teeth into the story, Stolberg picked up on a Time magazine slide show to assert that Callista Gingrich wears jewelry "that seemed straight out of the Tiffany catalog," while asserting the story has, after a week, already indelibly stuck to Gingrich:
Tiffany’s or knockoffs? The Gingrich campaign won’t say. But at this point, it no longer matters, according to political strategists of both parties. What matters, they say, is that the Tiffany story is sticking to Mr. Gingrich, helping to define -- or perhaps redefine -- him in the critical early days of his bid for the Republican presidential nomination.
That’s up to the Times and other media outlets, isn’t it? Then Stolberg compared Gingrich’s personal spending habits to make his "preaching" of fiscal conservatism appear hypocritical.
As House speaker, Mr. Gingrich preached the virtues of fiscal conservatism; now he is struggling to explain how spending large sums on jewelry fits in with that philosophy. And while a spokesman for Tiffany confirmed Tuesday that Mr. Gingrich had paid the debt in full, with no interest, parrying questions about a six-figure jewelry bill is hardly what his campaign needs at a time when many Americans are out of work or have lost their homes.
- Clay Waters's blog
- Login to post comments















Comments
It is *HIS* money, Ms. Stolberg.
Submitted by drsamherman on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 6:50pm.
As long as he pays for HIS charges with HIS money, it is none of YOUR business what he does, Sheryl.
John "Gigolo to the Ketchup Queen" Kerry moved his custom yacht out of Massachussetts to avoid the luxury tax. You can bet that Newt had to pay sales tax on all of his purchases.
If you really want to go the route of bad example spending during hard times, where where you when Michelle Antoinette was having the time of her life during last summer's multi-plane excursion to Europe?
Is Mr. Gingrich buying junk
Submitted by MidAmerica on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 6:49pm.
Is Mr. Gingrich buying junk jewelry or jewelry worth the investment? If it is good stuff I can see this as a better investment than say real estate or many stocks.
Besides if he is buying it for his wife who are we to say how he should spend his money. I don't care. I have never been under the impression that Newt was a guy who carried a lunch pail to work.
I just wish someone would
Submitted by Kilroy on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 7:15pm.
I just wish someone would judge me worthy of a 500,000 dollar line of credit. I would think somebody like that must have basic financial skills at the very least unlike those that just want to spend spend spend.
Who cares?
Submitted by The Irishman on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 7:14pm.
Everyone knows Tiffany is overpriced anyway. A perfect 4 carat diamond is a perfect 4 carat diamond and whether you pay $10K or $100K the value will always be the same.
Now if Newt shows up to the next debate with a diamond crusted grill in his teeth I may change my mind.
No one cares.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 11:50pm.
Much the same as your posts. No one cares Another Angry Black Zippers the 25 time retread troll.
So this lying hack Stolberg is trying to convince us that rich..
Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 7:19pm.
...lily white libs don't buy things at Tiffany's?
Right. Sure they don't.
And it's not as if Newt didn't pay his taxes and stole the money from the taxpayers like a lot of libs do.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
As I said in the previous
Submitted by motherbelt on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 8:21pm.
As I said in the previous thread on this subject:
Jealous hags, the lot of them.
Besides, that line of credit only means that's the maximum amount they will allow Mr. Gingrich to charge. It doesn't mean he has spent or will spend that much; it just means he has a good credit rating.
Is he wearing the jewely?
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 11:29pm.
What does buying jewelry for your wife have to do with someone's campaign? No one EVER complained about how much money John Edwards paid for his WIFE'S hairdos out of his own pocket! The controversy was how much John paid for his own haircut out of his CAMPAIGN FUNDS. Leave it to the New York Times to try to invent a controversy out of nothing.
Also, since he DID pay for the entire bill, on time, with his own personal funds, that clearly demonstrates his abilities for fiscal responsibility. He didn't try to pass of the debt to his children, did he? He didn't stick the taxpayers with the bill, did he? He didn't use his campaign funds to pay it off, did he. So, what's to explain?
I think Newt should run with this. It's a great chance to slam the Democrats. All he has to do is say: Hay, look, unlike the Democrats, I don't run perpetual debt. I PAY my bills and don't try to pass that debt off onto the next generation. How much does Hillary Clinton still owe for her 2008 campaign debt, for an example? Democrats have to raffle off their own spouses just to pay back some of their debts! Is that who you want running the government?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
A credit line at Tiffany's???
Submitted by Order270 on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 2:56am.
Why are the Libs so concerned about what Newt Gingrich buys or makes. They threw a hissy fit over the profits me earned on one of his first books to the point where he gave it back only to turn around and crow over how much Hillary Clinton made on her book.
This is the guy that produced a budget SURPLUS. These guys can't even cut the deficit. They are flat out scared of him.
Actually the "hissy fit" was
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 3:22am.
Actually the "hissy fit" was thrown by both Republicans and Democrats who were discomfited by the 4.5 million dollar advance given Speaker of the House Gingrich by Harper Collins which was owned by Rupert Murdoch--before Newt had sold a single book. He was embarrassed into returning the money, but it was just another example of a smart guy acting stupidly.
Jer
Did Hilary return her $8
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 9:56am.
Did Hilary return her $8 million advance?
Yea
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 3:04pm.
Yea, at the same time Obama returned his 1.9 million dollar advances, which was NEVER.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
There was never a budget
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 9:52am.
There was never a budget surplus. It's a myth.